Hmmm... 40 posts and not a single thumbs down, Joe, you've made this a perfect world where everyone agrees with everyone else, or maybe you've simply dumbed down the conversation to where no one can actually tell if anyone agrees with you or not.

lnpark wrote:Hmmm... 40 posts and not a single thumbs down, Joe, you've made this a perfect world where everyone agrees with everyone else, or maybe you've simply dumbed down the conversation to where no one can actually tell if anyone agrees with you or not.

Best comment on this thread.

100% agree....oh wait, how will anyone know unless I post. :(

If anyone on these forums is bothered by some thumbs down....take up bird watching instead of posting.

The serial "thumbs down" people are just one of the things that happen in an open forum like this. Live with it.

Ken

Last edited by Bubb on October 3rd, 2009, 10:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

lnpark wrote:Hmmm... 40 posts and not a single thumbs down, Joe, you've made this a perfect world where everyone agrees with everyone else, or maybe you've simply dumbed down the conversation to where no one can actually tell if anyone agrees with you or not.

Exactly.

I used up all my thumbs in about five minutes yesterday, and I can't give any more for several hours yet.

Since the poll is running away with not capping the thumbs, are you going to change it back, Joe?

lnpark wrote:Hmmm... 40 posts and not a single thumbs down, Joe, you've made this a perfect world where everyone agrees with everyone else, or maybe you've simply dumbed down the conversation to where no one can actually tell if anyone agrees with you or not.

Best comment on this thread.

100% agree....oh wait, how will anyone know unless I post. :(

If anyone on these forums is bothered by some thumbs down....take up bird watching instead of posting.

The serial "thumbs down" people are just one of the things that happen in an open forum like this. Live with it.

Ken

Exactly, would it not just be easier to ignore people who complain about getting a bunch of thumbs downs, like it really makes any difference at all? It means absolutely nothing, nobody is going to agree with us 100% of the time. I saw my thumbs down count double over the course of a week after tangling with a certain radio personality, the only emotion I had about that was a warm fuzzy feeling that somebody would spend that much time trying in vain to annoy me yet fail to do so. If people want to fixate on silly stuff like this that makes no difference whatsoever, let them waste their time and wring their hands all they want.

How many hours in the week is spent on preventing "Thumb Bandwagoneers" from thumb stalking others? There could be some real, honest to goodness Serial Thumb Stalkers out there, too. Is this new preventive thumbing going to cause them to pour on different toxic behaviors in a different manner to innocent bloggers??

I don't know what thumbs are but from the poll at the beginning of this line Id say somebody put a foot in a good system and messed it up. Maybe my mother was right about here but so fare all I see is a solution that never seemed to have a problem.

This is, as predicted, forcing a lot more responses to those who would have previously just received a thumbs down.

I'm not sure this is the way we should be going.

The instant response with the thumbs was one of the things I liked about this forum, even when the thumbs were down and directed at me.I think it's one of the reasons there are so many participants....Hate to have lost it. :(

NativeD wrote:Why does it need to be limited, Joe? We can't thumb the same post down more than once, so what does it matter how MANY posts we thumb down?

And I think limiting it to two is a little extreme, unless you're also going to limit the number of thumbs up that are allowed.

Well well well. Looks to me like the left leaning DP is trying to protect the feelings of those who are getting on the negative side of things here. Before the Rocky sent a bunch of us here, I visited numerous times. The thumbs down for any conservative position were overwhelming. Guess being in the minority in fields of thought is bugging the DP management. I'd also guess the thumbs down are concentrated on those agreeing with the likes of Litwin.

Now it will look like no one disagrees with much of anything. Change it back.

Those who group thumb, and I was asked to join one group, are their own worst enemies.

If you decide to keep the limit don't hide anything. Unpopular posts deserve the same viewing as popular ones.

As for tracking the multiple identities of a poster....there must be a lot of people over there with nothing to do. How soon to the shutdown guys?

InTheTrees wrote:This has to be one of the brazillion idiotic ideas that man has come up with over the years.

How many is a brazillion anyway?

And was this your idea Joe? I'm sorry, but no matter who's idea it is, it is absolutely a bottom feeder. Of the brazillion idiotic ideas man has come up with over time (the umbrella powered flying machine, pet rocks, DeLorean, self-incriminating emails, Titanic, there are some really good ones over on darwinawards.com, etc.) this has to be one of the worst. At least the guy who came up with the umbrella powered flying machine was trying to fly. What do you wish to accomplish with this idea?

I don't know how to say it better.

Alas, I have reached my limits, so I am unable to give you a thumbs down.

Now I can voice my displeasure as a reply: what is really wrong with this? I do not see any intellect in your response, only name calling. Constraints are a good thing on internet discussion forums. Too much freedom lets the crazy idealists dominate (from both sides).

And now, instead of a simple thumbs-down to your post, I am forced to respond and engage in an intellectual debate and let the masses choose sides instead of simply looking at thumb up/down votes. I guess this makes it harder to quickly follow what is popular simply and easily (kind of like following Obama) and making people think about the positions they are taking and reading articulated, well thought out and reasoned responses.

Reiya wrote:Interesting new tack Joe...It will be fascinating to see how this unfolds...Thanks for brainstorming something new!I don't use the thumbs down anymore, so it will be interesting to see how many posts are hidden. Also, at the beginning of threads that tend to generate a great deal of heated traffic, those posts often get more activity because they are at the beginning and people are fresh with that thread. Like lots of baby pictures of the first born child and the last child hardly gets any, sort of thing...

joe, if you don't yet have a clue as to how much we are laughing and making fun of you, I don't know what to tell you.

NativeD wrote:And once again, grandpaw, NOBODY'S POSTS ARE BEING DELETED.

That was never part of the equation. Posts with a lot of thumbs down are simply being hidden, and you are completely free to view them anyway, if you want to.

Thanks Native D for straightening me out. I simply forgot the part of Joel's opening post about being able to view hidden posts.

Now that I am straightened out, I am neutral on Joel's proposal even though as a matter of principle I think it is wrong to thus empower posters to anonymously and without giving any reason to be able to control the treatment of a post, particularly since it appears that a main use of thumbs down is to vent emotions.

I think the effect of hiding a post is that curiosity will draw attention to the hidden posts and it might well get more attention than it would if not hidden.

One question is whether or not all or parts of the contents of the hidden post can be quoted in subsequent posts, and, if not, to what extent can a poster discuss such contents without quoting it. It does not seem fair to me to deny a subsequent poster the ability to discuss the contents of a hidden post; such a discussion seems to me to be more important than an anonymous thumbs down with no discussion.

Another is whether subsequent posters can give a thumbs up, or down, to a hidden post.

hey grandpa, you never needed straightening out. You're just an old coot who doesn't know better.

nativeD wrote:But how does the number of posts you thumb down make you a bandwagoner?

C'mon! TWO a day?

Really, why all the fuss over thumbs anyway? There's no penalty for getting thumbed down, so who cares how many there are?

Since the beginning of March, a number of posters here have been hit by others that come in and put all down thumbs on the posters previous postings. In addition, there is now a new trend of ppl that are following others and just mod them down regardless of what is said.

Joe, this is a GREAT idea.Keep it at 5.

At some point, you might want to take the time to add some heuristics so that you can determine who should have a greater number of down votes. Basically, if said person is not tracking, then perhaps increase to 8, while somebody who tracks others, would get 2 or even 0.

NWBroncoFan wrote:So does anyone know what the difference is between a "Thumb Bandwagoneer" and a Thumb Stalker??

Bandwagoneer is somebody jumping on the bandwagon.Far too many of these posts have been hit by opposing political debates.

The thump stalker is somebody is targeting a set number of ppl REGARDLESS of what they post. Several ppl have had all their posts DT by others. These actions have occurred since March.

And the stalking is worse than a wagoneer. They have anonymity, so they have no issue with stalking somebody else. I just have to wonder what those kind of ppl are like in real life. I am guessing that they are real cowards who have little issues with immoral acts IFF they believe they will get by with it.

joem wrote:Now, everyone is limited to five down-votes in a 24-hour period.

-Joe

Joe,What's up with all these changes all of a sudden? Is this a dictate from on high? Does the voting bog down the system? Are you wanting to cut down on the board activity? Are you "mixing it up" to keep it interesting?

Also, when someone posts, are they no longer redirected back to the forum?

waterflaws wrote:Joe,What's up with all these changes all of a sudden? Is this a dictate from on high? Does the voting bog down the system? Are you wanting to cut down on the board activity? Are you "mixing it up" to keep it interesting?

Also, when someone posts, are they no longer redirected back to the forum?

What they need to do is keep people like THIS GUY from giving HIMSELF a "thumbs up" every time he posts. He's not even subtle about it. How about fixing the board so that you cannot give yourself a positive mark for things that you post?

waterflaws wrote:Joe,What's up with all these changes all of a sudden? Is this a dictate from on high? Does the voting bog down the system? Are you wanting to cut down on the board activity? Are you "mixing it up" to keep it interesting?

Also, when someone posts, are they no longer redirected back to the forum?

What they need to do is keep people like THIS GUY from giving HIMSELF a "thumbs up" every time he posts. He's not even subtle about it. How about fixing the board so that you cannot give yourself a positive mark for things that you post?

Al, it really doesn't matter if someone gives themself a thumbs up on their posts. Everyone can do it, so it pretty much evens out. I even gave myself a thumbs down on one post I made to try keep a thread alive.

The issue here, with me, is the limit on the thumbs down. as it's currently configured, it will require more responses to those we disagree with.

Reiya wrote:Interesting new tack Joe...It will be fascinating to see how this unfolds...Thanks for brainstorming something new!I don't use the thumbs down anymore, so it will be interesting to see how many posts are hidden. Also, at the beginning of threads that tend to generate a great deal of heated traffic, those posts often get more activity because they are at the beginning and people are fresh with that thread. Like lots of baby pictures of the first born child and the last child hardly gets any, sort of thing...

joe, if you don't yet have a clue as to how much we are laughing and making fun of you, I don't know what to tell you.

I am not Joe and you quoted me... ~eye rolling~

So, I take it that you find it quite embarrassing when people laugh at you?If someone I don't respect, laughs at me, well it just isn't that big of a deal...

Those that I respect, would not laugh at me unless it was something that I would end up laughing at as well. I am guessing you don't hang out with those kind of cool folks who show respect for each other?

Laughter is not a bad thing and rudeness is just plain foolish unless you are really good at it. So far, I am thinking you are not so good at it...

waterflaws wrote:Joe,What's up with all these changes all of a sudden? Is this a dictate from on high? Does the voting bog down the system? Are you wanting to cut down on the board activity? Are you "mixing it up" to keep it interesting?

Also, when someone posts, are they no longer redirected back to the forum?

Waterflaws,

After September's flare-up we have been working to reduce the impact of trolls on our site. It's not a matter of system resources, no. These ideas come from what we see you all saying and the discussions we have among ourselves on the team.

The focus on thumbs comes because thumbs can instigate and inflame -- from the discussion here it seems that thumbs matter (either that or people needed a break from talking about the stuff they usually talk about)... we're just trying out new functionality, we'll see what effect it has on the boards, and go from there.